Regarding the importance of postW carbs (outside of the endurance context), here are the "big 3" studies thus far that challenge the idea that postW carbs will do anything beyond a sufficient protein dose for the goal of muscle anabolism (note that the main limitation of these studies is that they are acute rather than chronic/long-term):

If you find any conflicts, let me know. And keep in mind what I said in the original post of this thread: "outside of the endurance context"

Doing 60 sets of high reps & low rest = endurance work. But even then, unless you're going to hit those same muscle groups again within an insufficient timeframe to re-up glycogen stores (i.e., within the same day), then the objective of focusing on hitting your total carb target for the day (as opposed to immediately postworkout) still stands.

"The concurrent ingestion of 50 g of CHO with 25 g of protein did not stimulate mixed MPS or inhibit MPB more than 25 g of protein alone either at rest or after resistance exercise. [...] Our data suggest that insulin is not additive or synergistic to rates of MPS or MPB when CHO is coingested with a dose of protein that maximally stimulates rates of MPS." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23351781

Similar acute anabolic response dosing thresholds have been seen with egg protein & beef. However, this dosing ceiling is higher in older subjects (40-ish g as opposed to 20-25 g).

This is interesting. I actually notice better results from a large pre workout meal full of good carbs. It gives me the energy I need to finish my workouts. It really does well for me. I would also consider a protein shake pre workout too.

There's no debate IMO, all data shows no benefit of carbs postworkout if hypertrophy is your goal. Is building muscle the goal, or is maximizing transient hormone elevations the goal?

Having optimal hormone levels would contribute to anabolism, no? Even if a 5% increase is the result (i don't know for sure if we're talking about the same study or not yet) albeit an insignificant percentage increase why not go for any increase? Do carbs post negate hypertrophy or slow down the hypertrophic response? As far as I'm aware, no. So why not seek a benefit if even a small one.

Abstract
Whey protein is a supplemental protein source often used by athletes, particularly those aiming to gain muscle mass; however, direct evidence for its efficacy in stimulating muscle protein synthesis (MPS) is lacking. We aimed to determine the impact of consuming whey protein on skeletal muscle protein turnover in the post-exercise period. Eight healthy resistance-trained young men (age=21+/-1 .0 years; BMI=26.8+/-0.9 kg/m2 (means+/-SE)) participated in a double-blind randomized crossover trial in which they performed a unilateral leg resistance exercise workout (EX: 4 sets of knee extensions and 4 sets of leg press; 8-10 repetitions/set; 80% of maximal), such that one leg was not exercised and acted as a rested (RE) comparator. After exercise, subjects consumed either an isoenergetic whey protein plus carbohydrate beverage (WHEY: 10 g protein and 21 g fructose) or a carbohydrate-only beverage (CHO: 21 g fructose and 10 g maltodextran). Subjects received pulse-tracer injections of L-[ring-2H5]phenylalanine and L-[15N]phenylalanine to measure MPS. Exercise stimulated a rise in MPS in the WHEY-EX and CHO-EX legs, which were greater than MPS in the WHEY-RE leg and the CHO-RE leg (all p<0.05), respectively. The rate of MPS in the WHEY-EX leg was greater than in the CHO-EX leg (p<0.001). We conclude that a small dose (10 g) of whey protein with carbohydrate (21 g) can stimulate a rise in MPS after resistance exercise in trained young men that would be supportive of a positive net protein balance, which, over time, would lead to hypertrophy.

PMID 18059587 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
Full text: Atypon

We conclude that a small dose (10 g) of whey protein with carbohydrate (21 g) can stimulate a rise in MPS after resistance exercise in trained young men that would be supportive of a positive net protein balance, which, over time, would lead to hypertrophy.

No **** the whey + cho group did better than the cho only group. Problem is this says nothing about the topic. The question is if you need cho or not, not if you need whey or not. A study comparing whey to whey + cho is what you need to find.

The areas under the glucose and insulin curves were 17.5-fold (P&lt;0.05) and 5-fold (P&lt;0.05) greater, respectively, for PRO+CARB than for PRO. Exercise increased MPS and MPB (both P&lt;0.05), but there were no differences between PRO and PRO+CARB in the rested or exercised legs. Phosphorylation of Akt was greater in the PRO+CARB than in the PRO trial (P&lt;0.05); phosphorylations of Akt (P=0.05) and acetyl coA carboxylase-β (P&lt;0.05) were greater after exercise than at rest. The concurrent ingestion of 50 g of CHO with 25 g of protein did not stimulate mixed MPS or inhibit MPB more than 25 g of protein alone either at rest or after resistance exercise.
CONCLUSIONS:

Our data suggest that insulin is not additive or synergistic to rates of MPS or MPB when CHO is coingested with a dose of protein that maximally stimulates rates of MPS.

Having optimal hormone levels would contribute to anabolism, no? Even if a 5% increase is the result (i don't know for sure if we're talking about the same study or not yet) albeit an insignificant percentage increase why not go for any increase? Do carbs post negate hypertrophy or slow down the hypertrophic response? As far as I'm aware, no. So why not seek a benefit if even a small one.

Absolute LBM has already been measured in studies. So has muscle protein synthesis. In other words, that increase in anabolic hormones can be 5% or 2000%, but it evidently is not enough to stimulate further muscle growth.

Do carbs postworkout potentially blunt lipolysis? Yes.

http://pescience.com/
http://selectprotein.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

Absolute LBM has already been measured in studies. So has muscle protein synthesis. In other words, that increase in anabolic hormones can be 5% or 2000%, but it evidently is not enough to stimulate further muscle growth.

Absolute LBM has already been measured in studies. So has muscle protein synthesis. In other words, that increase in anabolic hormones can be 5% or 2000%, but it evidently is not enough to stimulate further muscle growth.

Do carbs postworkout potentially blunt lipolysis? Yes.

I am curious to know what your views are in terms of meal frequency and meal timing because the above sentence would imply importance over the simplistic view of "as long as you hit your macro targets the timing and frequency of feedings are largely irrelevant".

No **** the whey + cho group did better than the cho only group. Problem is this says nothing about the topic. The question is if you need cho or not, not if you need whey or not. A study comparing whey to whey + cho is what you need to find.

Hahaha!!!! I blame the Percocet and Valium! Researching has been fun to say the least

I am curious to know what your views are in terms of meal frequency and meal timing because the above sentence would imply importance over the simplistic view of "as long as you hit your macro targets the timing and frequency of feedings are largely irrelevant".

Pretty sure he sides with Alan regarding frequency (lower = better) and timing should be enough to fuel your workouts for optimal performance.
Cooper on the other hand im pretty sure just eats when he is hungry and after spending a few days with him is around 3-4 meals tops a day.

Pretty sure he sides with Alan regarding frequency (lower = better) and timing should be enough to fuel your workouts for optimal performance.
Cooper on the other hand im pretty sure just eats when he is hungry and after spending a few days with him is around 3-4 meals tops a day.

I am curious to know what your views are in terms of meal frequency and meal timing because the above sentence would imply importance over the simplistic view of "as long as you hit your macro targets the timing and frequency of feedings are largely irrelevant".

Postworkout is a unique situation. Under normal circumstances, we see that insulin can potentiate MPS and anabolic signaling. This is seen in studies with the post-post workout meal, whereas insulin gets elevated in a carbohydrate-dependent fashion (the second phase of the biphasic curve). However, in close proximity to training, protein alone stimulates MPS in a carbohydrate-independent fashion.

I've never felt timing is completely irrelevant. It's just less important than overall intake

http://pescience.com/
http://selectprotein.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

Do you believe in Intermittent Fasting and other non-generic meal patterns? Do you have to eat a certain amount of times per day to eat and why? It seems Meal Frequency is thrown around as Layne Norton has a 4-5 meal approach with BCAA’s in between, and some individuals who follow Intermittent Fasting thrive off 2-3 meals. What do you believe is optimal?

Layne Norton, PhD
The big question is, optimal for whom? Layne’s protocol’s theoretical basis is sound, at least on paper. It aims to strike a balance between avoiding the refractory nature of MPS under conditions of constantly elevated circulating amino acids, while still maximizing the number of nutrient-mediated anabolic ‘spikes’ through the day. This protocol might be appropriate for someone trying to pull the final strings to edge out the competition on a bodybuilding stage. However, I’m skeptical that this strategy would benefit those already consuming a high protein intake (which is already rich in BCAAs). For most non-competitors, I don’t see the realistic long-term sustainability of this routine.

As for the other end of the spectrum (2-3 meals per day), this is obviously more realistic for regular people. This works out well, since the importance of muscle retention during dieting varies according to the population. The more overfat & deconditioned someone is, the greater the proportional & net loss of fat vs. muscle is when dieting. Further along the progression, the leaner & more conditioned someone is, the more muscle they stand to lose as they continue to diet. So, can low meal frequency work for competitors? Yes, it can. Is it optimal? Well, that’s a question that so far doesn’t have a definitive, science-based answer, and it might never have one. For advanced athletes in a dieting situation, the objective is to retain as much muscle as possible while losing fat, since muscle loss at this point is a more urgent threat than it is for guys coming straight off the couch. Nitpicking for advanced athletes, I‘d speculate that anything below 3 meals (technically, 3 protein feedings) per day is not optimal, regardless of program phase.

Credit is due to the ISSN for preemptively stressing that the research on physiological & morphological effects of meal frequency in physically active and athletic populations is scarce. They responsibly state that this prevents definitive conclusions from being made. The following are the exact statements that comprise the ISSN position stand on meal frequency, which I’ll follow with my comments & conclusion.

When examining the above points, 1 & 4 have a substantive, cohesive, and adequately-designed body of research backing them. Thus, they possess the strongest evidence basis of the bunch. Number 3 sits right on the fence, since it’s a particularly complex and delicate area with much conflicting data. It’s my hunch that the differential effects of varying meal frequencies on blood markers of health would greatly diminish in the presence of a formal exercise program. Again, the potentially profound impact of training that’s missing from the current meal frequency research leaves big questions unanswered. Points 2 & 5 have the least scientific support, and the largest leaps of faith and bias from the ISSN.

In Closing

I’d advise everyone with enough motivation to dig into the references and question the conclusions of all parties involved. It’s clear that position stands of authoritative organizations are far from being completely accurate, complete, and bias-free. With that said, the ISSN provides plenty of food for thought. Again, read the full text of their paper in order to get the most out of my critique of it [2]. Meal frequency research is becoming increasingly more active, so it’s safe to predict that in the coming years, more relevant designs will narrow the gap between the questions and answers. Something I can wholeheartedly agree with is the paper’s closing quote: “Nonetheless, more well-designed research studies involving various meal frequencies, particularly in physically active/athletic populations are warranted.”

§ A haphazard/randomly variable meal frequency, not necessarily a lower frequency, negatively impacts thermogenesis, blood lipids, and insulin sensitivity.
§ Within a day, a higher frequency has no thermodynamic advantage over a lower frequency under controlled conditions.
§ The majority of controlled intervention trials show no improvement in body composition with a higher meal frequency.
§ Studies indicating the disappearance or lack of hunger in dieters occur in either complete starvation, or very low calorie VLCD regimes (800 kcal/day or less).
§ Hunger is a persistent problem with reduced meal frequency in non-starvation and other protocols with calories above VLCD levels.
§ For controlling appetite, the majority of research indicates the superiority of a higher meal frequency.
§ The body appears to be "metabolically primed" to receive calories and nutrients after an overnight fast. Breakfast is a particularly beneficial time to have dietary protein, since muscle protein synthethis rates are typically lowest at this time.
§ Overall, both experimental and observational research points to breakfast improving memory, test grades, school attendance, nutrient status, weight control, and muscle protein synthesis.

Intermittent Fasting

§ Animal research has shown a number of positive health effects of ADF and CR.
§ Human ADF research is scarce and less consistent than animal research, showing both benefits (insulin sensitivity is the most consistent outcome) and risks (impaired glucose tolerance in women).
§ So far, control groups are absent in all human ADF studies. Thus, no comparative conclusions can be drawn between ADF and linear caloric intake.
§ The of the single published controlled trial to date (Stote, et al) comparing 1 versus 3 meals is heavily confounded by an exceptionally high dropout rate in the 1-a-day group, and the use of BIA to measure body composition.
§ The 1-a-day group reported increasing hunger levels throughout the length of the trial, echoing the problem of hunger with a reduced meal frequency seen in other similar research.
§ Ramadan fasting (12-16 hours per day, sunrise to sunset) decreases daytime alertness, mood, wakefulness, competitive athletic performance, and increases the incidence of traffic accidents. It's difficult to determine the relative contributions of dehydration and a lack of food to these adverse phenomena.
§ The effects of exercise and meal frequency on body composition is an interesting but largely unexplored area of research.

Fasting & Exercise

§ Improvements in insulin sensitivity, glucose tolerance (except in women undergoing ADF), bodyweight/bodyfat, blood pressure, blood lipids, and heart rate are commonly cited benefits of IF & CR.
§ All of the above benefits can be achieved by exercise, minus the downsides of fasting.
§ IF and CR have both been found to have neuroprotective effects by increasing BDNF levels.
§ A growing body of research shows that exercise can also increase BDNF, and the degree of effect appears to be intensity-dependent.
§ Based on the limited available data, resistance training performance, especially if its not particularly voluminous, might not be enhanced by preworkout EAA+CHO.
§ Despite equivocal performance effects of pre- or midworkout EAA+CHO, it minimizes muscle damage that occurs from fasted resistance training.
§ Immediate preworkout protein and/or EAA+CHO increases protein synthesis more than fasted resistance training with those substrates ingested immediately postworkout.
§ It’s possible that a partial fast (as short as 4 hours) before resistance training can negatively impact muscle protein status.

Conclusion

It's given that personal goals and individual response are the ultimate navigators of any protocol. Therefore, training and meal schedules should be built upon individual preferences & tolerances, which undoubtedly will differ. However, the purpose of this article is to arm the reader with the facts, so that opinions and anecdotes can be judged accordingly. Personal testimony is invariably biased by the powerful placebo effect of suggestion, and sometimes by ulterior agenda. Science is perched on one end of the epistemological spectrum, and hearsay is on the opposite end. As the evidence clearly indicates, IF is not a bed of roses minus the thorns - there are definite pros and cons.

In the world of fitness, recommendations for improving performance and body composition often gain blind acceptance despite a dearth of objective data. This is common in a field where high hopes and obsessive-compulsive tendencies are united with false appeals and incomplete information. In order to be proven effective beyond the mere power of suggestion, supposed truths must be put through the crucible of science. Drawing conclusions from baseless assumptions is a good way to get nowhere - fast.

I am curious to know what your views are in terms of meal frequency and meal timing because the above sentence would imply importance over the simplistic view of "as long as you hit your macro targets the timing and frequency of feedings are largely irrelevant".

Originally Posted by mr.cooper69

Postworkout is a unique situation. Under normal circumstances, we see that insulin can potentiate MPS and anabolic signaling. This is seen in studies with the post-post workout meal, whereas insulin gets elevated in a carbohydrate-dependent fashion (the second phase of the biphasic curve). However, in close proximity to training, protein alone stimulates MPS in a carbohydrate-independent fashion.

I've never felt timing is completely irrelevant. It's just less important than overall intake

Under normal circumstances, yesh coop but surely you realize circumstances are rarely normal for some of us.

"To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey
Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard

Your complete lack of adding anything of personal substance to a thread is really getting old. Its one thing to just co-sign whatever someone else says (appeal to authority) but you not only do that but then also unnecessarily copy and paste the article along with the link. Both are not needed, when nothing is explained or elaborated, just post the link.

Your complete lack of adding anything of personal substance to a thread is really getting old. Its one thing to just co-sign whatever someone else says (appeal to authority) but you not only do that but then also unnecessarily copy and paste the article along with the link. Both are not needed, when nothing is explained or elaborated, just post the link.

Its the DIRECT information from Alan himself and simplified to the conclusion of what people want to read instead of reading the entire article.
Most people WONT read the entire article hence the cliffs of the subject or the main points addressed in the readings/research/article.

Complete lack of personal substance --> THAT IS MY INTERVIEW WITH ALAN.... the exact thing you quoted....

You asked for aragon's stance so i linked you to 3 articles regarding his. I could post more, but i guess thats not good enough because it is his stance regarding Timing and Frequency which you asked about.

How about this. Lets walk through this some. I responded specifically to this comment

Originally Posted by The Solution

Pretty sure he sides with Alan regarding frequency (lower = better) and timing should be enough to fuel your workouts for optimal performance.Cooper on the other hand im pretty sure just eats when he is hungry and after spending a few days with him is around 3-4 meals tops a day.

and I highlighted in bold the lower=better partNow show me anywhere in your response post where someone cites research that demonstrates less meal frequency to be BETTER than more frequent feedings. HINT: Evidence that demonstrates more =|= better is not the same as less = better

Your complete lack of adding anything of personal substance to a thread is really getting old. Its one thing to just co-sign whatever someone else says (appeal to authority) but you not only do that but then also unnecessarily copy and paste the article along with the link. Both are not needed, when nothing is explained or elaborated, just post the link.

JudoJosh... Why disparage Chef Bob is trying to contribute as best he can but not up to your standards is it? Why not say, "you are lacking personal substance and I would like to see more of what your research shows, rather then on about, "is really getting old." He is contributing more so then 85% of those here so why not cut him some little slack bro.

"To your wife you should kiss try today"-Touey
Brotato's bark brings shakes to the pups in the yard

How about this. Lets walk through this some. I responded specifically to this comment and I highlighted in bold the lower=better partNow show me anywhere in your response post where someone cites research that demonstrates less meal frequency to be BETTER than more frequent feedings. HINT: Evidence that demonstrates more =|= better is not the same as less = better

Then show me where he clearly suggests that you should have a very high meal frequency, because he does not support it and his research above even chimes in regarding that.

Have you read his AARR (since i cannot link it on here) regarding meal frequency and his debates on it with Layne and his round table discussions? He is the last to pimp 5-6 meals a day

Then show me where he clearly suggests that you should have a very high meal frequency, because he does not support it and his research above even chimes in regarding that.

1. I could care less what his stance is or what his thoughts on it are. I am more concerned with what the research says. When I first said "I hope thats not Aragons stance" it was because the research doesnt support a less=better WRT meal frequency
2. AGAIN, research that demonstrates more frequent feedings may not be better than less frequent feedings is not the same as research showing less frequent feedings are better

Originally Posted by The Solution

Have you read his AARR (since i cannot link it on here) regarding meal frequency and his debates on it with Layne and his round table discussions? He is the last to pimp 5-6 meals a day

No I have not and really have no desire to. I typically avoid reading what others thoughts are on research before I read the research myself. It can predispose one to picking a side before they are even presented with the evidence. If you want you can post their citations though and I will happily read that. As I said I have seen absolutely nothing that would suggest less frequent feedings is BETTER but I am open to reviewing the research and the possibility that they might be.

Absolute LBM has already been measured in studies. So has muscle protein synthesis. In other words, that increase in anabolic hormones can be 5% or 2000%, but it evidently is not enough to stimulate further muscle growth.

Do carbs postworkout potentially blunt lipolysis? Yes.

But do carbs post blunt hypertrophy? If not, why not go for a beneficial hormonal response even if it is a small one? As you know positive hormone balance isn't only good for LBM so even a small increase would be beneficial, no? Are carbs detrimental post workout? Besides "potentially "blunting lipolysis?

But do carbs post blunt hypertrophy? If not, why not go for a beneficial hormonal response even if it is a small one? As you know positive hormone balance isn't only good for LBM so even a small increase would be beneficial, no? Are carbs detrimental post workout? Besides "potentially "blunting lipolysis?

Carbs don't blunt hypertrophy. Again, long-term studies show that carbohydrates do not further enhance LBM if ingested with protein postworkout. And since carbs positively influence "anabolic" hormones, what does this tell us? That the transient hormonal response has no effect on hypertrophy.

So to summarize: carbohydrates have no benefit postworkout. The detriment is likely negligible too, but since it is unproven territory, it's at least more likely that carbs are detrimental vs beneficial postworkout

http://pescience.com/
http://selectprotein.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of ingestion of 100 g of carbohydrates on net muscle protein balance (protein synthesis minus protein breakdown) after resistance exercise. Two groups of eight subjects performed a resistance exercise bout (10 sets of 8 repetitions of leg presses at 80% of 1-repetition maximum) before they rested in bed for 4 h. One group (CHO) received a drink consisting of 100 g of carbohydrates 1 h postexercise. The other group (Pla) received a noncaloric placebo drink. Leg amino acid metabolism was determined by infusion of*2H5- or*13C6-labeled phenylalanine, sampling from femoral artery and vein, and muscle biopsies from vastus lateralis. Drink intake did not affect arterial insulin concentration in Pla, whereas insulin increased several times after the drink in CHO (P*< 0.05 vs. Pla). Arterial phenylalanine concentration fell slightly after the drink in CHO. Net muscle protein balance between synthesis and breakdown did not change in Pla, whereas it improved in CHO from -17 ± 3 nmol·ml-1·100 ml leg-1*before drink to an average of -4 ± 4 and 0 ± 3 nmol·ml-1·100 ml leg-1during the second and third hour after the drink, respectively (P*< 0.05 vs. Pla during last hour). The improved net balance in CHO was due primarily to a progressive decrease in muscle protein breakdown. We conclude that ingestion of carbohydrates improved net leg protein balance after resistance exercise. However, the effect was minor and delayed compared with the previously reported effect of ingestion of amino acids.

I can't bold the quote from my phone so...

" We conclude that ingestion of carbohydrates improved net leg protein balance after resistance exercise. However, the effect was minor and delayed compared with the previously reported effect of ingestion of amino acids."

"CHO alone improved net leg protein balance after resistance exercise". Obviously the effects are less than that of the ingestion of amino acids but it does show some benefit.

Carbs don't blunt hypertrophy. Again, long-term studies show that carbohydrates do not further enhance LBM if ingested with protein postworkout. And since carbs positively influence "anabolic" hormones, what does this tell us? That the transient hormonal response has no effect on hypertrophy.

So to summarize: carbohydrates have no benefit postworkout. The detriment is likely negligible too, but since it is unproven territory, it's at least more likely that carbs are detrimental vs beneficial postworkout

And to reiterate what I said in my last post. I'm not now nor have I ever said that the beneficial hormonal response to carbs would be beneficial for hypertrophy. I said if there is any positive benefit even if only 5% why not? I don't try to have optimal hormone levels for hypertrophy or to obtain lbm. I aim for higher levels because, why not try to have the best levels you can? Especially if as of to date there is no data furnishing proof of detrimental effects...

If you could get an extra 5% on a test would you forgo the opportunity or strive for the best possible score?

And to reiterate what I said in my last post. I'm not now nor have I ever said that the beneficial hormonal response to carbs would be beneficial for hypertrophy. I said if there is any positive benefit even if only 5% why not? I don't try to have optimal hormone levels for hypertrophy or to obtain lbm. I aim for higher levels because, why not try to have the best levels you can? Especially if as of to date there is no data furnishing proof of detrimental effects...

If you could get an extra 5% on a test would you forgo the opportunity or strive for the best possible score?

That's not a relevant analogy. The goal on an exam is to get a good score. My goal for weight training is to build LBM. Since there is a 0% benefit for LBM, I would not pursue this, just as I would not spend time (analagous to money for a carb source) getting an extra 0% on an exam.

Carbohydrates postworkout have been shown to reduce cortisol, reduce GH, and increase the AUC of insulin release. I don't really consider these beneficial for any purpose, really.

http://pescience.com/
http://selectprotein.com/
The above is my own opinion and does not reflect the opinion of PES

I feel there is a couple points that are being missed with broad blanket statements. Optimal timing would be dependent on the context of what is optimal such as what are the athletes goals and what was the atheltes state of training (fasted, fes, intra workout nutrition?) I will elaborate more later after class